VALUE ENGINEERING STUDIES FINAL REPORT. Portsmouth Bypass, Phase 1 SCI PID 19415
|
|
- Gerard Houston
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 VALUE ENGINEERING STUDIES FINAL REPORT Portsmouth Bypass, Phase 1 SCI PID PREPARED FOR: Ohio Department of Transportation District Eastern Avenue Chillicothe, Ohio PREPARED BY: HDR Engineering, Inc Carver Road, Suite 200 Cincinnati, Ohio December 2008
2 Value Engineering Studies PORTSMOUTH BYPASS, PHASE 1 SCI PID TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction Alternative No. 2/ Alternative No Alternative No. 11A/11B Alternative No. 45/ Summary LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: New Profile Savings, Alt. 2/30 (VE-7)... 4 Table 2-2: New Profile Cost, Alt. 2/30 (VE-7)... 4 Table 2-3: New Profile Savings, Alt. 2/30 (VE-8)... 4 Table 2-4: New Profile Cost, Alt. 2/30 (VE-8)... 5 Table 2-5: Earthwork By Project Section... 6 Table 3-1: Culvert Savings, Alt Table 3-2: Mitigation Costs, Alt Table 4-1: Earthwork Cost / Savings at Culvert Locations, Alt. 11A Table 4-2: Earthwork Cost / Savings at Safety Grading Locations, Alt. 11A Table 4-3: Earthwork Cost / Savings at Culvert Locations, Alt. 11B Table 4-4: Culvert Savings, Alt. 11B Table 4-5: Mitigation Savings, Alt. 11B Table 5-1: Durable Rock Available, Alt. 45/ Table 5-2: New Pavement Design Savings, Alt. 45/ Table 5-3: New Pavement Design Cost, Alt. 45/ Table 6-1: Value Engineering Study Results APPENDICES Appendix A Alternative No. 2/30 Supporting Material... A Appendix B Alternative No. 5 Supporting Material... B Appendix C Alternative No. 11A/11B Supporting Material...C Appendix D Alternative No. 45/52 Supporting Material...D i
3 Value Engineering Studies 1.0 Introduction A second Value Engineering (VE) Study was held for the entire Portsmouth Bypass Project on December 3-6, This Study was based on the Stage 1 plans submitted by TranSystems. At this meeting, thirty VE Alternatives were identified as either a potential cost savings item or a design suggestion. ODOT reviewed each of these alternatives electing to implement three and instructed HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) to study four others for potential inclusion in Phase 1 of the project, which is under final design by HDR. This report summarizes HDR s study and findings of the following four VE Alternatives as they relate to Phase 1 (PID #19415): Alternative 2/30 Adjust the profile to reduce the volume of excavation and waste material by allowing high fill culverts. Alternative 5 Raise the culverts in high fill areas to shorten the pipe by filling in the upstream basin and constructing a lined channel down the fill slope. Alternative 11A/11B Steepen the fill slopes by holding the toe of slope and extending the break point at the top of slope away from the centerline, or by holding the top of slope break point and bringing the toe in towards the centerline. The aforementioned method would reduce waste and the later method would reduce culvert length and stream impacts. Alternative 45/52 Provide a crushed rock subgrade to minimize pavement thickness, reduce the number of underdrain runs required, and reduce the volume of waste material. A benefit/cost ratio was generated for each of these alternatives utilizing the unit costs that were used by HDR for the Revised Stage 1 Cost Estimate dated July Each benefit/cost analysis compares the Stage 1 design to the alternative being studied. The following unit costs were used in this report: Excavation $ 3.35 per cubic yard Embankment $ 0.74 per cubic yard (avg. haul ½ mile) Embankment $ 0.85 per cubic yard (avg. haul 1¼ mile) Waste Material $ 1.10 per cubic yard 60 Culvert $ per linear foot 72 Culvert $ per linear foot 78 Culvert $ per linear foot 90 Culvert $ per linear foot Stream Mitigation $ per linear foot Asphalt Pavement $ per cubic yard Type C Granular Matl. $ per cubic yard Excavation, As Per Plan $ 3.35 per cubic yard Embankment, As Per Plan $ per cubic yard 6 Base Pipe UD $ 4.05 per linear foot 6 Shallow Pipe UD $ 4.25 per linear foot 6 Rock Cut UD $ 5.75 per linear foot Bridge Impacts $ per square foot (no add l piers req d.) Each of the alternatives was studied as a stand alone measure. Care must be taken when combining the cost saving effects of two or more alternatives since the net savings may not equal the sum of the individual savings presented herein. SCI , PID December 2008
4 Value Engineering Studies 2.0 Alternative No. 2/ Description The purpose of this study was to investigate raising the profile in critical areas to reduce the volume of waste material by increasing the embankment volume and reducing the excavation volume. The ODOT Drainage Design Manual (General Notes Figures through ) states that the maximum cover over any culvert is 100 feet, unless a special design is performed. The Stage 1 profile was set based on using standard culverts with a cover less than 100 feet. For this study, the requirement for using standard culverts has been waived. 2.2 Advantages / Disadvantages The Value Engineering Report identified the following advantages/disadvantages: Advantages: Reduces cost Improves the profile Reduces project cut and waste Disadvantages: May require non-standard culverts Delays project schedule Increases design cost 2.3 Study Approach The following parameters were established and used to develop alternative profiles: Design Speed of SR 823 is 70 mph Set reduction of excavation as target Minimize bridge impacts Minimize additional project footprint Use a maximum grade of 4.5% on SR 823 Profile can change in key areas or throughout the complete Phase 1 limits Investigate options with and without bridge impacts Utilizing these parameters, HDR developed eight conceptual profiles as alternatives. Two of these profiles (VE-1 and VE-2) were spot improvements focusing on the deep rock cut between stations and and did not impact the bridge structures. The other six profiles (VE-3 through VE-8) covered the majority of the Phase 1 limits. These profiles were developed using an iterative approach, modifying each subsequent profile to increase the earthwork savings while minimizing the increased structure cost. VE-7 and VE-8 provide the greatest potential earthwork cost savings and are presented in this report for consideration. The difference between VE-7 and VE-8 can be found in the grade north of TR234 through the first major cut, with VE-7 featuring a 2.9% grade and VE-8 using the maximum 4.5%. While the latter results in additional earthwork savings, it will impact the northern ramps for the TR234 Interchange. This impact will likely require additional acceleration length for the northbound on-ramp due to significantly slower truck speeds. SCI , PID December 2008
5 Value Engineering Studies Since the vast majority of cross sections along SR 823 were modified by hand due to geotechnical design, HDR developed a simplified template (criteria file) within Geopak that could be easily processed for the alternative profiles. The simplified template was calibrated against the earthwork volumes from the Stage 1 plans until the margin of error was within one percent. Once calibrated, the simplified template was run for the alternative profiles. The comparison of earthwork volumes used the calibrated run versus the alternative runs. Calibration tables can be found in Appendix A for the presented profile alternatives (VE-7 and VE-8). When developing the template in fill sections, barrier grading was used in lieu of safety grading in many locations. Most of the roadway is protected by guardrail in the Stage 1 plans, so safety grading was not required, and changing to barrier grading with the higher fills would limit the amount of additional impacts. The construction limits of the alternatives (VE-7 and VE-8) stay within the environmental footprint for the project and should have minimal impacts to the current right-of-way design; the exceptions are primarily at culvert locations where some additional right-ofway may be required. If a profile modification is implemented, the final design slopes can be refined as much as possible to use additional waste material while staying within the current rightof-way limits. The culvert and stream impacts were estimated using the culvert drawings and raising the edge of the graded shoulder a distance equal to the alternative profile elevation minus the Stage 1 profile elevation. The proper side slope for the revised height of fill was then applied to the raised edge of graded shoulder and the culvert length revision was calculated. The stream impact equaled the change in culvert length. The bridge impacts were calculated on an additional square foot of deck basis since no additional spans were required. The square footage was calculated by lengthening the bridge two times the difference in profile elevations on each end of the bridge. This represents the added bridge length to get the 2:1 spill slope in front of the bridge abutment. The estimated engineering cost for all design changes was based on engineering judgment. 2.4 Benefit / Cost Analysis The two profile alternatives with the greatest earthwork savings were carried into the benefit/cost analysis. Both Alternatives (VE-7 and VE-8) revise the majority of the Phase 1 profile length, with the difference between the two being the first major cut as described previously. See Appendix A for profile output data and profile drawings comparing Stage 1, VE-7 and VE-8 profiles. Also included in Appendix A are typical cross sections demonstrating the impact of raising the profile in key locations. Both VE-7 and VE-8 present savings by reducing the excavation required and increasing the embankment, which reduces the waste material. The added costs associated with the alternatives include: increased embankment, culvert lengths, stream impacts, bridge lengths, wick drains, and engineering costs. Tables 2-1 through 2-4 show the estimated savings and costs associated with each alternative. Please note that the volumes shown in these tables do not include the side roads as they have not been modified as part of the profile changes and do not affect the cost comparison. For all earthwork volumes along the project, including side roads, see Table 2-5. SCI , PID December 2008
6 Value Engineering Studies An additional cost feature with VE-8 is a change in the unit cost for embankment (from $0.74 / CY to $0.85 / CY). This is due to an increase in the average haul distance required to move material from excavation in one part of the project to where embankment is needed in another. A detailed analysis was undertaken that examined the location of the various cuts and fills and where material would need to be hauled. VE-8 requires a large amount of material to be moved from north of SR139 southward and across Swauger Valley Road, resulting in a significant increase in the average haul distance for the project. For VE-8, the average roundtrip haul distance is 1¼ miles, whereas both Stage 1 and VE-7 have an average roundtrip haul distance of approximately ½ mile. Alternative VE-7 Table 2-1: New Profile Savings, Alt. 2/30 (VE-7) Item Stage 1 VE-7 Difference Unit Cost Savings Calibrated Excavation 5,351,000 4,498, ,000 $3.35 $2,858,000 Waste 2,922,000 1,569,000 1,353,000 $1.10 $1,488,000 Total Excavation/Waste Savings $4,346,000 Table 2-2: New Profile Cost, Alt. 2/30 (VE-7) Item Stage 1 VE-7 Difference Unit Cost Cost Calibrated Embankment 3,232,000 3,604, ,000 $0.74 $275, Culverts 24 $ $6, Culvert 56 $ $11, Culvert 39 $ $10, Culvert 28 $ $3,892 Stream Mitigation 147 $ $36,750 Bridge Impacts $305,000 Wick Drains $616,000 Engineering $500,000 Total Cost $1,768,000 As illustrated in the tables above, the benefit/cost ratio for VE-7 is 2.4. The total savings realized by implementing profile VE-7 is approximately $ 2.5 million. Alternative VE-8 Table 2-3: New Profile Savings, Alt. 2/30 (VE-8) Item Stage 1 VE-8 Difference Unit Cost Savings Calibrated Excavation 5,351,000 4,264,000 1,087,000 $3.35 $3,641,000 Waste 2,922, ,000 2,577,000 $1.10 $2,835,000 Total Excavation/Waste Savings $6,476,000 SCI , PID December 2008
7 Value Engineering Studies Table 2-4: New Profile Cost, Alt. 2/30 (VE-8) Item Stage 1 VE-8 Difference Unit Cost Cost Calibrated Embankment 3,232,000 4,559,000 1,327,000 $0.85 $1,128,000 Embankment (uc )* 3,232,000 $0.11 $356, Culverts 157 $ $45, Culvert 225 $ $46, Culvert 39 $ $10, Culvert 28 $ $3,892 Stream Mitigation 449 $ $112,250 Bridge Impacts $305,000 Wick Drains $616,000 Extended Accel Lane $200,000 Engineering $500,000 Total Cost $3,323,000 * Denotes the change in unit cost from Stage 1 ($0.74) to VE-8 ($0.85) due to haul distance As illustrated in the tables above, the benefit/cost ratio for VE-8 is 1.9. The total savings realized by implementing profile VE-8 is approximately $3.1 million. 2.5 Additional Information There are elements to consider that can not be quantified in the benefit/cost analysis. Stream mitigation costs are included in the analysis; however, the value associated with an untouched natural stream has been forfeited. Another element to consider is the location of the environmental footprint and the construction limits. The construction limits for Alternatives VE-7 and VE-8 remain within the environmental footprint for the project and are anticipated to have minimal impacts to the current right-of-way design. The exception is at culvert or other locations where a 2:1 slope already exists and any profile change will push the new toe out of the Stage 1 construction limits. The profiles of the northbound entrance ramp (Ramp A) and the southbound exit ramp (Ramp D) at the Shumway Hollow Road (TR234) Interchange will be impacted by the VE-8 profile. For earthwork calculations, a conceptual design was utilized for the revised ramp profiles. Due to the 4.5% mainline grade and steeper ramp grade required with VE-8, additional ramp acceleration length/auxiliary lane to the top of the hill may be required as significant slowing of truck traffic is likely due to the steeper grades. A lump sum cost has been included in the above analysis for an increased lane length. The potential negative impact to truck speed in this area should be taken into consideration when evaluating VE-8. Currently the earthwork in the vicinity of the TR234 interchange north of TR234 will consist of staged embankment construction (two stages) with a maximum wick drain spacing of five feet in order to complete the earthwork in a two year construction schedule. This design was based on a maximum fill height of 57 feet. The proposed profiles VE-7 and VE-8 both increase the embankment height, with VE-8 increased to just less than 100 feet. Slope stability and wick drain analyses were performed with a maximum embankment height of 100 feet with 2:1 side slopes. With the new earthwork in this area, three stages will be required for embankment construction SCI , PID December 2008
8 Value Engineering Studies with reduced wick drain spacing of four feet in order to complete the earthwork in a two year construction schedule. The cost shown in Tables 2-2 and 2-4 reflect the change in wick drain spacing from five feet to four feet. If VE-7 is selected for implementation, additional analysis would be undertaken to determine if up to five foot spacing could be used in all or part of the embankment. For the purposes of this study, the more conservative four foot spacing was utilized for both alternatives. As mentioned previously, VE-8 would result in an increase in the average haul distance for the project. Shown in Table 2-5 is a breakdown of the cut and fill volumes along the project for each of the three distinct sections for Stage 1, VE-7 and VE-8. The table shows all earthwork volumes for the project, including side roads. This provides a snapshot of the amount of material in each section and how much would need to move between sections. As indicated in the table, the section from SR139 to CR28 features the greatest amount of waste for the project. Raising the mainline (and ramp) profiles at the CR28 interchange with VE-7 and VE-8 has provided over a 20% reduction in the amount of waste generated in this section. As with TR234, conceptual layouts of the revised CR 28 interchange ramp profiles were undertaken to determine the potential earthwork savings and feasibility of the profile change. Table 2-5: Earthwork By Project Section Stage1 *Cut Fill Delta Start to Swauger Valley 2,591,950 1,601, ,200 Swauger Valley to SR ,600 1,012, ,400 SR139 to CR28 3,587, ,500 2,897,800 Total 6,689,850 3,303,250 3,386,600 VE-7 *Cut Fill Delta Start to Swauger Valley 2,319,350 1,731, ,700 Swauger Valley to SR ,200 1,157, ,800 SR139 to CR28 3,019, ,550 2,230,350 Total 5,716,450 3,678,200 2,038,250 VE-8 *Cut Fill Delta Start to Swauger Valley 2,049,800 2,685, ,050 Swauger Valley to SR ,200 1,157, ,800 SR139 to CR28 3,019, ,550 2,230,350 Total 5,446,900 4,632, ,500 *Cut with 15% swell factor applied (payment is based on raw excavation) Please note that profiles VE-7 and VE-8 are conceptual and may be modified slightly to maximize savings or minimize impacts once final cross sections are developed if either of these profiles were adopted into final design. Detailed design activities would also be required for the interchange SCI , PID December 2008
9 Value Engineering Studies ramp profiles. Because neither profile VE-7 or VE-8 require a height of cover over the culverts greater than 100 feet, standard culverts can still be used on the project. In addition, if either VE-7 or VE-8 is incorporated into the final design, further savings may be achieved by shifting the southbound ramps at the CR 28 interchange toward the north to further reduce the amount of cut within this interchange. As more detailed interchange design would be required to determine any potential savings, it was not included as part of this VE Study. Implementation of either VE-7 or VE-8 would require a design change to the Stage 1 plans, resulting in a schedule shift for the Stage 2 submission. This would ultimately impact the proposed letting schedule currently shown for A shift into the following calendar year would likely result in additional inflationary cost increases. If prompt decisions can be made throughout the process, design changes can likely be made in a timeframe that would keep the proposed letting schedule in the same calendar year (2011), thus minimizing or eliminating any inflationary increases. SCI , PID December 2008
10 Value Engineering Studies 3.0 Alternative No Description The purpose of this study is to raise the culverts in high fill areas to shorten the pipe and construct a lined channel down the fill slope. In order to raise the culverts, the upstream flow line would need to be raised by filling the stream channel. 3.2 Advantages / Disadvantages The Value Engineering Report identified the following advantages/disadvantages: Advantages: Shortens culvert length Easier to replace culvert Reduces culvert cost Allows project waste to be placed in fills Disadvantages: Requires maintenance of outlet ditch Increased stream impacts on inlet side Increased right of way impacts on inlet side 3.3 Study Approach Each culvert was reviewed to determine if there were any constraints upstream or downstream that would prohibit raising the pipe. Three of the nine mainline culverts could not be raised due to invert elevation restraints. The culverts at station and have a pond at the upstream end that can not be filled. The invert of the culvert at station is controlled by the upstream drainage on CR 28; therefore, this culvert can not be raised. The remaining six culverts were investigated in more detail. The first step was to look at the controlling factors which determine how high the culverts could be raised. Since the premise was to fill the upstream channel, the control had to come from the SR 823 roadside ditch on the upstream side of the culvert. With the culvert naturally being the low point of the ditch, the control became the high points of the ditch on either side of the culvert. The high point was held in order to maintain the natural drainage patterns. The lower elevation of the two high points was used to calculate the new culvert elevation by providing a minimum 0.5% slope from the high point to the culvert invert. The characteristics of the stream were then checked to determine if achieving this invert was possible and if the stream would be the controlling factor in setting the invert elevation. Minimum cover requirements were also a determining factor in setting the invert elevation. See Appendix B for a schematic of this strategy. To maximize cost savings, a balance needed to be determined between shortening the culvert by raising it in the fill versus increasing right-of-way and mitigation impacts. 3.4 Benefit / Cost Analysis Since none of the culverts in Phase 1 are special designs, the only savings in this study are reduced culvert length and reduced waste to fill in the upstream basin. The reduced waste quantity has been deemed negligible in regards to this study because for every cubic yard reduced waste SCI , PID December 2008
11 Value Engineering Studies savings is an increase in fill cost. The unit cost for waste is $1.10 while the unit cost for fill is $0.74; therefore, each cubic yard of material used to fill in the upstream basin would only result in a $0.36 savings and without extremely deep culverts, the amount of fill is relatively small. Table 3-1 shows the maximum savings in culvert length by raising the culvert as high in the fill as the controlling factors allow, which would give the maximum savings. Table 3-2 shows the additional cost in stream mitigation in order to raise the culvert in the fill. Culvert Table 3-1: Culvert Savings, Alt. 5 Culvert Size Reduced Length Unit Unit Cost Savings " 117 LF $205 $23, " 151 LF $205 $30, " 111 LF $325 $36, " 126 LF $288 $36, " 107 LF $205 $21, " 119 LF $262 $31,178 Total $180,000 Culvert Table 3-2: Mitigation Costs, Alt. 5 Additional Length Unit Unit Cost Cost LF $250 $33, LF $250 $75, LF $250 $92, LF $250 $172, LF $250 $40, LF $250 $78,750 Total $493,000 According to the tables, the benefit/cost ratio for this study is 0.4 resulting in an approximate cost of $313,000 to implement. This benefit/cost ratio does not include the additional cost of rock channel protection down the fill slope and the additional right-of-way required to fill in the upstream basin. Adding these values would only result in a higher cost to implement. In addition, the benefit/cost ratio does not exceed 1.0 for any of the individual culvert locations. There are elements to consider that can not be quantified in the benefit/cost analysis. Stream mitigation costs are included in the analysis; however, the value associated with an untouched natural stream has been forfeited. Another element to consider is the location of the environmental footprint and the construction limits. Modifications associated with Alternative 5 stay within the environmental footprint for the project but will impact the current construction limits and right-of-way design on the upstream side of the culverts. SCI , PID December 2008
12 Value Engineering Studies 4.0 Alternative No. 11A/11B 4.1 Description The purpose of this study is twofold. Alternative 11A intends to reduce the waste volume and maintain the construction limits by holding the Stage 1 toe of slope as a hinge point and using steepened fill slopes of 1½:1 at culvert locations in place of the current 2:1 slopes. Alternative 11B intends to reduce culvert and stream impact lengths by using the hinge point at the top of the current 2:1 design slope and using a 1½:1 slope in place of the current 2:1 slope. Both of these alternatives would require the use of processed durable rock to create the 1½:1 slope. 4.2 Advantages / Disadvantages The Value Engineering Report identified the following advantages/disadvantages: Advantages 11A: Allows project waste to be placed in fills Reduces cost Disadvantages 11A: Special controlled fill (1½ :1) Advantages 11B: Reduces length of culverts Reduces stream impacts Reduces right-of-way impacts Reduces cost Disadvantages 11B: Creates additional waste material Special controlled fill (1½ :1) 4.3 Study Approach Alternative 11A Since the intent of this alternative was to use more waste in the fill slope areas without changing the toe of the slope location, there are no impacts to culvert length, stream mitigation or right-ofway. This alternative was investigated at the culvert locations in addition to all other fill areas along the project length. In areas where existing slopes are protected by guardrail the slopes were changed to 2:1, and at all culvert locations the slopes were changed to 1½:1. The only mainline culvert that did not have this slope change evaluated was the culvert at station because it is located in close proximity to the structure over CR28. Most fill slopes on this project follow safety grading criteria which requires a 6:1 or flatter foreslope through the clear zone and then a 3:1 or flatter slope beyond the clear zone. The Stage 1 design used 6:1 through the clear zone and 4:1 beyond the clear zone. In an effort to reduce waste, the intent of Alternative 11A was applied in all areas of fill with a 4:1 slope by changing the slope to 3:1 from the toe until meeting the 6:1 slope. This approach could be incorporated in the Stage 2 plans without implementing this Value Engineering Alternative. It is important to note however that SCI , PID December 2008
13 Value Engineering Studies changing the slope design from the toe up will provide an inconsistent offset for the break from 6:1 to 3:1. The break will no longer be located at the clear zone offset and will vary from station to station. Although all break points will be located outside of the clear zone, this may create an unusual sight for drivers since the break line is not parallel to the edge of the shoulder. The average end area method was used to determine the quantity of additional fill which equals the quantity of waste reduced. This method was used at the culvert locations in addition to the safety grading locations. Schematics and the average end area calculations for both these situations can be found in Appendix C. Alternative 11B This alternative holds the top of the current 2:1 as a hinge point and steepens the slope to 1½:1 which will bring the toe of slope in towards the centerline. This alternative actually increases the amount of waste; therefore, the only location that this alternative would result in a cost savings is at the culvert locations due to the reduction in culvert length, stream mitigation and right-of-way. The average end area method was used to determine the quantity of fill reduced, which equals the quantity of additional waste. A schematic and the average end area calculations for this situation can be found in Appendix C. Each culvert location was evaluated to determine the length that the culvert could be reduced, which would equal the reduction in stream mitigation. Finally, the rightof-way impacts were investigated and found to be insignificant. Only a minimal reduction in rightof-way could be realized since the controlling points are typically located outside of the culvert locations. 4.4 Benefit / Cost Analysis Alternative 11A The savings associated with Alternative 11A came from the reduction of project waste. With this reduction comes an increase in fill material. Table 4-1 shows the values associated with each culvert. While the fill required in the 1½:1 slope is special controlled fill, the change in unit cost from regular fill has been deemed negligible due to the small fraction of total earthwork involved. Table 4-2 shows the values associated with the safety grading locations. Table 4-1: Earthwork Cost / Savings at Culvert Locations, Alt. 11A Culvert Fill Vol. (CY) Cost $0.74/CY Waste Vol. (CY) Savings $1.10/CY ,280 $947 1,280 $1, ,090 $3,027 4,090 $4, ,130 $6,016 8,130 $8, ,530 $11,492 15,530 $17, ,420 $9,931 13,420 $14, ,620 $43,379 58,620 $64, ,830 $24,294 32,830 $36, ,520 $1,865 2,520 $2,772 Total 136,420 $101, ,420 $150,000 SCI , PID December 2008
14 Value Engineering Studies Table 4-2: Earthwork Cost / Savings at Safety Grading Locations, Alt. 11A Street Name Fill Vol. (CY) $0.74/CY Waste Vol. (CY) $1.10/CY SR ,340 $177, ,340 $264,374 TR234 Ramp A 9,400 $6,956 9,400 $10,340 TR234 Ramp B 2,760 $2,042 2,760 $3,036 TR234 Ramp C 900 $ $990 TR234 Ramp D 1,470 $1,088 1,470 $1,617 CR28 Ramp A 600 $ $660 Total 255,470 $189, ,470 $281,000 The total savings realized by Alternative 11A is $431,000 and the total cost associated with this savings is $340,000 (Embankment cost plus a $50,000 engineering cost). The resulting benefit/cost ratio is 1.3 resulting in a net savings of approximately $91,000. Alternative 11B The cost associated with Alternative 11B comes from the increase in project waste. With this increase comes a reduction in fill material. Table 4-3 shows the values associated with each culvert. While the fill required in the 1½:1 slope is special controlled fill, the change in unit cost from regular fill has been deemed negligible due to the small fraction of total earthwork involved. Table 4-3: Earthwork Cost / Savings at Culvert Locations, Alt. 11B Fill Vol. Savings Waste Vol. Cost Culvert (CY) $0.74/CY (CY) $1.10/CY ,250 $925 1,250 $1, ,320 $3,197 4,320 $4, ,600 $6,364 8,600 $9, ,530 $12,232 16,530 $18, ,880 $10,271 13,880 $15, ,030 $48,122 65,030 $71, ,050 $26,677 36,050 $39, ,740 $2,028 2,740 $3,014 Total 148,400 $110, ,400 $163,000 SCI , PID December 2008
15 Value Engineering Studies The major savings associated with Alternative 11B comes from the reduction of culvert and stream mitigation length. Table 4-4 and Table 4-5 show the culvert and mitigation savings respectively. Culvert Table 4-4: Culvert Savings, Alt. 11B Culvert Size Reduced Length Unit Unit Cost Savings " 32 LF $205 $6, " 43 LF $205 $8, " 76 LF $325 $24, " 57 LF $288 $16, " 75 LF $205 $15, " 148 LF $288 $42, " 149 LF $205 $30, " 36 LF $262 $9,432 Total $154,000 Culvert Table 4-5: Mitigation Savings, Alt. 11B Reduced Length Unit Unit Cost Savings LF $250 $8, LF $250 $10, LF $250 $19, LF $250 $14, LF $250 $18, LF $250 $37, LF $250 $37, LF $250 $9,000 Total $154,000 The total savings realized by Alternative 11B is $418,000 and the total cost is $213,000 (Waste cost plus a $50,000 engineering cost). The resulting benefit/cost ratio is 2.0 resulting in a net savings of approximately $205,000. This benefit/cost ratio does not include the additional savings in right-of-way. Due to the nature of long right-of-way tangents, the shortening of the culverts will have a minimal impact on the right-of-way savings. There are elements to consider that can not be quantified in the benefit/cost analysis. Both Alternative 11A and 11B utilize 1½:1 slopes. Some issues need to be considered when using this steep of a slope in high fill areas. The first issue is the above average inspection time to ensure the proper material and compaction is used for slope stabilization. The second issue is the negative visual effect (aesthetics) of a high rock slope that will grow little to no vegetation for many years. In addition, 1½:1 slopes were previously proposed in order to reduce costs at bridge locations, but it was ultimately decided by ODOT to maintain the 2:1 slopes as originally designed. SCI , PID December 2008
16 Value Engineering Studies 5.0 Alternative No. 45/ Description The purpose of Alternative No. 45 is to utilize durable rock from the project excavations to provide a layer of graded aggregate that can improve the strength of the subgrade, which would result in a reduced asphalt pavement thickness. The purpose of study 52 is to eliminate the underdrains at the outside edge of the traveled lanes. This study will incorporate both ideas into one set of analyses to reduce pavement and underdrain costs. 5.2 Advantages / Disadvantages The Value Engineering Report identified the following advantages/disadvantages: Advantages: Improves drainage of the subgrade Improves subgrade strength resulting in reduced pavement thickness Eliminates some underdrains Reduces cost Disadvantages: Not a common department solution Increases construction management effort Possible learning curve for unfamiliar contractors 5.3 Study Approach The first step in this study was to determine the amount of durable rock available from the project excavations that could be used for the aggregate base. The total volume of rock excavation was determined by the average end area method in proposed rock cut locations. Based on test borings performed at various locations within these cuts, approximately 75% of the rock cut excavation is anticipated to be comprised of sandstone. Table 5-1 shows the estimate of total durable rock available. The Sandstone Volume is 75% of the Cut Volume listed in the table. SCI , PID December 2008
17 Value Engineering Studies Street Name Table 5-1: Durable Rock Available, Alt. 45/52 Begin End Cut Vol. (CY) Sandstone Vol. (CY) SR ,269, ,100 SR , ,100 SR ,200 66,200 SR , ,600 SR ,680,900 1,260,700 TR , ,600 TR234 - Ramp D ,700 41,800 CR28 - Ramp A , ,400 CR28 - Ramp B ,300 51,200 CR28 - Ramp C , ,200 CR28 - Ramp D , ,500 Total 3,757,000 Since it is anticipated that a large portion of the savings under this alternative would come from reducing the pavement thickness, a potential new pavement buildup was determined for the project. The Stage 1 pavement buildup for SR 823 is 11 of 880 Warranty Pavement on 6 of Aggregate Base with underdrains at the edges of pavement, edges of shoulder and median. Currently TR 234 ramps and CR 28 ramps have 9 of 880 Warranty Pavement on 6 of Aggregate Base with underdrains at the edges of shoulder. The ODOT Pavement Design & Rehabilitation Manual was used to determine the current structural number of 5.0 for the SR 823 pavement section. The calculation to determine a proposed pavement buildup that provides an equal structure number can be found in Appendix D. HDR chose to use a minimum pavement buildup of 8 of 880 Warranty Pavement on 6 of Aggregate Base on 12 of Type C Granular Material for SR 823, TR 234 ramps and CR 28 ramps. This minimum pavement section provides a higher structural number than the Stage 1 pavement section, but was held as a minimum for serviceability reasons. Underdrains were considered only at the edges of shoulder to collect any water within the aggregate base and the Type C Granular Material. This typical section provides adequate pavement structural stability and subgrade drainage. It was determined that there is adequate durable rock through excavation to supply the Type C Granular Material for a 12 lift throughout the project limits. The new pavement buildup was analyzed to determine the cost and savings associated with the design change. The project was divided into three typical sections: fill, cut and rock cut. The quantities for each typical section were impacted differently by the change in pavement design. In addition, locations where the earthwork will be constructed but not paved until later design phases (SR to , TR 234 ramps B & C, SR to and CR 28 ramps B & C) will also be impacted differently by the change in pavement design. There are six different scenarios that were analyzed. Typical sections and a written description of each scenario can be found in Appendix D. SCI , PID December 2008
18 Value Engineering Studies 5.4 Benefit / Cost Analysis The majority of savings in this study came from the reduced pavement thickness and the removal of the majority of underdrains. The major cost of this study is the Type C Granular Material required for the new drainage layer under the pavement. The Type C Granular Material will be processed on site from the sandstone excavated for the project. There are other costs and savings regarding different changes in earthwork quantities, but they are minimal in comparison to the Type C Granular Material, reduced pavement and reduced underdrains. Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 show the results of the benefit/cost analysis based on the six typical section scenarios applied to their applicable station ranges. Table 5-2: New Pavement Design Savings, Alt. 45/52 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Savings Reduced Pavement 11,100 CY $ $1,132,200 Reduced Fill 36,400 CY $0.74 $26,936 Reduced Waste 11,100 CY $1.10 $12,210 Reduced Cut APP 6,800 CY $3.35 $22,780 Reduced Embankment APP 26,700 CY $10.00 $267,000 Reduced 6" Base Pipe Underdrains 7,500 LF $4.05 $30,375 Reduced 6" Shallow Pipe Underdrains 21,350 LF $4.25 $90,738 Reduced 6" Rock Cut Underdrains 16,800 LF $5.75 $96,600 Total Savings $1,679,000 Table 5-3: New Pavement Design Cost, Alt. 45/52 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost Type C Granular Material 50,600 CY $25.00* $1,265,000 Additional Cut 8,600 CY $3.35 $28,810 Additional Waste 21,000 CY $1.10 $23,100 Engineering $100,000 Total Cost $1,417,000 According to the tables, the benefit/cost ratio of this alternative is 1.2 resulting in an approximate savings of $262,000. * To determine the unit cost of the Type C Granular Material, the quantities and associated unit costs were reviewed from ODOT bid tabulations from 2003 through As very little data was available for Type C Granular Material, the data set was expanded to include both Type B and Type D Granular Material. The bid quantities were plotted against their associated unit cost to determine the relationship between project size and unit cost. A power function was then fit to the data in order to determine an average unit cost for the approximate 50,000 cubic yards (CY) of granular material, resulting in a unit cost of $22.50/CY. Bringing this amount forward to 2008 dollars results in a unit cost of $25.00/CY. While on site processing may result in a lower unit cost, for this study a conservative approach was utilized so as to not over estimate potential savings. SCI , PID December 2008
19 Value Engineering Studies 6.0 VE Studies Summary This report presents the results of an engineering study for the four value engineering alternatives identified by ODOT to determine their feasibility for inclusion in the SCI (Portsmouth Bypass, Phase 1) project. The report presents the benefit/cost ratio and net savings for each alternative. These alternatives were analyzed individually as stand alone measures. Care must be taken when combining the cost saving effects of two or more of the alternatives since the net savings may not equal the sum of the individual savings presented herein. It should also be understood that while the analyses presented herein were thorough, they do not represent final design cost analyses. When reviewing the savings and costs presented in this report, the magnitude of the numbers are what is important. The exact numbers may change if any of these alternatives are incorporated into the final design of the project, based on a more detailed design. In general, a conservative approach was undertaken so as to not over estimate any potential cost savings. Table 6-1 is a summary of each alternative with their benefit/cost ratio and the estimated net savings. Table 6-1: Value Engineering Study Results Alternative Description Benefit/Cost Estimated Savings 2/30 Revised Profile VE-7 Revised Profile VE $2,500,000 $3,100,000 5 Raise Culverts 0.4 $313,000* 11A Steepen Slope/Hold Toe 1.3 $91,000 11B Steepen Slope/Hold Top 2.0 $205,000 45/52 Rock Subgrade 1.2 $262,000 * This alternative presents a net increase in project costs. SCI , PID December 2008
20 Value Engineering Studies Appendix A Alternative No. 2/30 Supporting Material SCI , PID A December 2008
21 CALCULATED CHECKED MATCH LINE STA SR823 BEGIN PHASE 1 PHASE-3 PID BY OTHERS P.V.I. STA ELEV V.C. EXISTING GROUND AT PROPOSED PROFILE (STAGE I) PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-7) PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-8) % MATCH LINE STA SR PROFILE-SR823 STA TO STA mbotdorf PLOT DATE: 12/4/ :30:54 AM USER: REVISION DATE: 12/4/2008 FILE:.../ / / 19415gf001.dgn MODEL: Sheet STAGE I PROPOSED PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-7 PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-8 PROFILE SCI
22 MATCH LINE STA SR CALCULATED CHECKED % PROPOSED PROFILE (STAGE I) PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-7) PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-8) EXISTING GROUND AT MATCH LINE STA SR PROFILE-SR823 STA TO STA mbotdorf PLOT DATE: 12/4/ :31:01 AM USER: REVISION DATE: 12/4/2008 FILE:.../ / / 19415gf002.dgn MODEL: Sheet STAGE I PROPOSED PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-7 PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-8 PROFILE SCI
23 CALCULATED CHECKED MATCH LINE STA SR823 EXISTING GROUND AT PROPOSED PROFILE (STAGE I) PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-7) PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-8) % % % MATCH LINE STA SR PROFILE-SR823 STA TO STA mbotdorf PLOT DATE: 12/4/ :04:03 PM USER: REVISION DATE: 12/4/2008 FILE:.../ / / 19415gf003.dgn MODEL: Sheet STAGE I PROPOSED PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-7 PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-8 PROFILE SCI
24 CALCULATED CHECKED MATCH LINE STA SR %+4.50 % P.V.I. STA ELEV = , VC % EXISTING GROUND AT % PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-8) PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-7) % PROPOSED PROFILE (STAGE I) P.V.I. STA ELEV = , VC MATCH LINE STA SR PROFILE-SR823 STA TO STA mbotdorf PLOT DATE: 12/4/ :31:15 AM USER: REVISION DATE: 12/4/2008 FILE:.../ / / 19415gf004.dgn MODEL: Sheet STAGE I PROPOSED PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-7 PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-8 PROFILE SCI
25 CALCULATED CHECKED MATCH LINE STA SR % P.V.I. STA ELEV = , VC % PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-8) PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-7) EXISTING GROUND AT % PROPOSED PROFILE (STAGE I) MATCH LINE STA SR PROFILE-SR823 STA TO STA mbotdorf PLOT DATE: 12/4/ :31:24 AM USER: REVISION DATE: 12/4/2008 FILE:.../ / / 19415gf005.dgn MODEL: Sheet STAGE I PROPOSED PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-7 PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-8 PROFILE SCI
26 CALCULATED CHECKED MATCH LINE STA SR823 P.V.I. STA ELEV = , VC % % PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-8) PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-7) PROPOSED PROFILE (STAGE I) % EXISTING GROUND AT P.V.I. STA ELEV = , VC % % MATCH LINE STA SR PROFILE-SR823 STA TO STA mbotdorf PLOT DATE: 12/4/ :31:32 AM USER: REVISION DATE: 12/4/2008 FILE:.../ / / 19415gf006.dgn MODEL: Sheet STAGE I PROPOSED PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-7 PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-8 PROFILE SCI
27 CALCULATED CHECKED MATCH LINE STA SR823 P.V.I. STA ELEV ,500 V.C % EXISTING GROUND AT PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-8) % % % % PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-7) PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-8) PROPOSED PROFILE (ALTERNATIVE VE-7) PROPOSED PROFILE (STAGE I) MATCH LINE STA SR PROFILE-SR823 STA TO STA mbotdorf PLOT DATE: 12/4/ :04:10 PM USER: REVISION DATE: 12/4/2008 FILE:.../ / / 19415gf007.dgn MODEL: Sheet STAGE I PROPOSED PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-7 PROFILE ALTERNATIVE VE-8 PROFILE SCI
PN /21/ SURFACE SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS
PN 420-10/21/2016 - SURFACE SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS DESCRIPTION: The surface tolerance specification requirements are modified as follows for all pavements of constant width with at least
More information800 Access Control, R/W Use Permits and Drive Design
Table of Contents 801 Access Control... 8-1 801.1 Access Control Directives... 8-1 801.2 Access Control Policies... 8-1 801.2.1 Interstate Limited Access... 8-1 801.2.2 Limited Access... 8-1 801.2.3 Controlled
More informationMEMORANDUM. Figure 1. Roundabout Interchange under Alternative D
MEMORANDUM Date: To: Liz Diamond, Dokken Engineering From: Subject: Dave Stanek, Fehr & Peers Western Placerville Interchanges 2045 Analysis RS08-2639 Fehr & Peers has completed a transportation analysis
More informationTable Existing Traffic Conditions for Arterial Segments along Construction Access Route. Daily
5.8 TRAFFIC, ACCESS, AND CIRCULATION This section describes existing traffic conditions in the project area; summarizes applicable regulations; and analyzes the potential traffic, access, and circulation
More informationBrent Spence Bridge Design Exceptions - Alternative I
s - Alternative I ITERCHAGE umber Existing Reason(s) For Potential Impact(s) to Eliminate s Potential Mitigation Solutions CURVE O. 5 PI Sta. 24+98.87 Y 1 57 mph (60) 526' (570') 44 mph The line of sight
More informationPN 420-7/18/ SURFACE SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS
PN 420-7/18/2014 - SURFACE SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PAVEMENTS DESCRIPTION: The surface tolerance specification requirements are modified as follows for all mainline lanes and collector-distributor road
More informationIH 35 FEASIBILITY STUDY
IH 35 FEASIBILITY STUDY COOKE COUNTY, TEXAS February 1, 2007 Prepared by: Carter & Burgess, Inc. For: The Wichita Falls District of the Texas Department of Transportation INDEX I. INTRODUCTION. 3 II. PURPOSE
More informationThe Design-Builder shall meet local road criteria provided by the local governing agencies.
11 ROADWAYS 11.1 General The -Builder shall conduct all Work necessary to meet the requirements of roadways. Roadway classifications include mainline, acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes, auxiliary
More informationMICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL PROVISION FOR PAVEMENT RIDE QUALITY (MEAN ROUGHNESS INDEX ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA)
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL PROVISION FOR PAVEMENT RIDE QUALITY (MEAN ROUGHNESS INDEX ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA) CFS:TEH 1 of 10 APPR:KPK:JFS:07-07-16 FHWA:APPR:07-15-16 a. Description. This
More informationAppendix C. 5% Design Plan and Profile Drawings/ Additional Design Information. South Oak Cliff Corridor Blue Line Extension
Appendix C 5% Design Plan and Profile Drawings/ Additional Design Information The 5% plan and profile drawings were provided in a separate volume with the Draft Local EA and have not changed. Hard copies
More informationAPPENDIX C ROADWAY BEFORE-AND-AFTER STUDY
APPENDIX C ROADWAY BEFORE-AND-AFTER STUDY The benefits to pedestrians and bus patrons are numerous when a bus bay is replaced with a bus bulb. Buses should operate more efficiently at the stop when not
More informationAPPENDIX A Basis of Design and Design Criteria Memorandum
APPENDIX A Basis of Design and Design Criteria Memorandum Job No: Y01-500 Files are stored in: Engineering / Client / Yolo/Y01500 Buckeye and Rumsey/Rumsey CR 41 over Cache Creek, CAD files stored in:
More informationNew Buck O Neil (U. S. 169) Crossing Benefit-Cost Analysis. Kansas City, Missouri
New Buck O Neil (U. S. 169) Crossing Benefit-Cost Analysis Kansas City, Missouri New Buck O Neil (U. S. 169) Crossing Benefit-Cost Analysis prepared for Kansas City, Missouri prepared by Burns & McDonnell
More informationIntroduction and Background Study Purpose
Introduction and Background The Brent Spence Bridge on I-71/75 across the Ohio River is arguably the single most important piece of transportation infrastructure the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana (OKI) region.
More informationAlignment Comparison Report (May 9, 2002) PARK BRIDGE TO BRAKE CHECK (10 Mile Bridge) TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY (CCR)
Alignment Comparison Report (May 9, 2002) PARK BRIDGE TO BRAKE CHECK (10 Mile Bridge) TRANS CANADA HIGHWAY (CCR) INTRODUCTION The Ministry of Transportation (MoT), Region 2, Highway Engineering staff were
More informationEvaluation of Renton Ramp Meters on I-405
Evaluation of Renton Ramp Meters on I-405 From the SE 8 th St. Interchange in Bellevue to the SR 167 Interchange in Renton January 2000 By Hien Trinh Edited by Jason Gibbens Northwest Region Traffic Systems
More informationDRIVEWAY STANDARDS EXHIBIT A. The following definition shall replace the definition of driveway in Section 62:
1365 S. Camino del Rio Durango, CO 81303 970-382-6363 DRIVEWAY STANDARDS Resolution 2014-40 EXHIBIT A The following definition shall replace the definition of driveway in Section 62: Driveway means a roadway,
More information4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS
4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS 4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes the estimated capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the Modal and High-Speed Train (HST) Alternatives evaluated in this
More informationDESIGN STANDARDS SECTION DS 3 STREETS
DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION DS 3 STREETS DS 3-01 GENERAL: A. INTENT: The intent of these Design Standards is to provide minimum standards for the design of public streets. These standards are intended to
More informationFREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
THE PROJECT Last updated on 2/19/16 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS What s happening on Highway 169? The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is planning to rebuild and repair the infrastructure on
More informationMedian Barriers in North Carolina
Median Barriers in North Carolina AASHTO Subcommittee on Design - 2006 June 13-16, 2006 Jay A. Bennett North Carolina DOT State Roadway Design Engineer Brian Murphy, PE Traffic Safety Engineer Safety Evaluation
More informationCOUNTY ROAD SPEED LIMITS. Policy 817 i
Table of Contents COUNTY ROAD SPEED LIMITS Policy 817.1 PURPOSE... 2.2 APPLICABILITY... 2.3 DEFINITIONS... 2.4 STATE ENABLING LEGISLATION... 3.5 SPEED LIMITS ON COUNTY ROADS (CCC 11.04)... 3.6 ESTABLISHING
More informationMedian Barriers in North Carolina -- Long Term Evaluation. Safety Evaluation Group Traffic Safety Systems Management Section
Median Barriers in North Carolina -- Long Term Evaluation Safety Evaluation Group Traffic Safety Systems Management Section Background In 1998 North Carolina began a three pronged approach to prevent and
More informationFREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
THE PROJECT Last updated on 9/8/16 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS What s happening on Highway 169? The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is planning to rebuild and repair the infrastructure on
More informationInterstate Operations Study: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Simulation Results
NDSU Dept #2880 PO Box 6050 Fargo, ND 58108-6050 Tel 701-231-8058 Fax 701-231-6265 www.ugpti.org www.atacenter.org Interstate Operations Study: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area 2025 Simulation Results
More informationNote: The October 2007 version of this report has been updated in this December 2008 report to present costs in year 2007 dollars.
Sound Transit Phase 2 South Corridor LRT Design Report: SR 99 and I-5 Alignment Scenarios (S 200 th Street to Tacoma Dome Station) Tacoma Link Extension to West Tacoma Prepared for: Sound Transit Prepared
More informationINTERCHANGE OPERTIONS STUDY Interstate 77 / Wallings Road Interchange
INTERCHANGE OPERTIONS STUDY Interstate 77 / Wallings Road Interchange City of Broadview Heights, Cuyahoga County, Ohio Prepared For: City of Broadview Heights Department of Engineering 9543 Broadview Road
More informationOhio Department of Transportation Official Bid Tabulation Jolene M. Molitoris, Director
Ohio Department of Transportation Official Bid Tabulation Jolene M. Molitoris, Director Project No. 100281 PID 77255 LUC-IR-475-14.18 Federal Type: MAJOR RECONSTRUCTION Letting Date: 6/3/2010 Completion
More informationsafedirection.com.au Ref: PM 017/02
DISTRIBUTOR 0 Product Manual Ref: PM 017/02 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction... 3 2.0 The... 3 3.0 How the Functions... 4 4.0 Crash Test Performance... 4 5.0 Characteristics of Terminals... 5 5.1 Gating
More informationMICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL PROVISION FOR PAVEMENT RIDE QUALITY (IRI ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA)
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 03SP502(P) SPECIAL PROVISION FOR PAVEMENT RIDE QUALITY (IRI ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA) C&T:TEH 1 of 8 C&T:APPR:JFS:MJE:01-28-08 FHWA:APPR:02-01-08 a. Description. Provide
More informationWentzville Parkway South Phase 2 & 2A
Wentzville Parkway South Phase 2 & 2A Sponsor Wentzville Project No. RB18-000034 Project Type New Road TOTAL FUNDING Phase 2 Total County Sponsor Federal $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 Phase 2A Total
More informationCOUNTY ROAD SPEED LIMITS. Policy 817 i
Table of Contents COUNTY ROAD SPEED LIMITS Policy 817.1 PURPOSE... 1.2 APPLICABILITY... 1.3 DEFINITIONS... 1.4 STATE ENABLING LEGISLATION... 2.5 SPEED LIMITS ON COUNTY ROADS (CCC 11.04)... 2.6 ESTABLISHING
More informationTraffic Engineering Study
Traffic Engineering Study Bellaire Boulevard Prepared For: International Management District Technical Services, Inc. Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-3580 November 2009 Executive Summary has been requested
More informationTable Standardized Naming Convention for ERD Files
S-1 (2399) PAVEMENT SURFACE SMOOTHNESS (2013 version) DO NOT REMOVE THIS. IT NEEDS TO STAY IN FOR THE CONTRACTORS. Always use with SP2005-111 (CONCRETE PAVING MIX SPECIFICATIONS PAVEMENT) and SP2005-140
More informationAlberta Transportation Rumble Strips - C-TEP Lunch and Learn
Alberta Transportation Rumble Strips - C-TEP Lunch and Learn Bill Kenny P.Eng, Director: Design, Project Management and Training, Technical Standards Branch. - July 2011 What are Rumble Strips? A preventative
More informationOhio Department of Transportation Official Bid Tabulation Jerry Wray, Director
Ohio Department of Transportation Official Bid Tabulation Jerry Wray, Director Project No. 140123 PID 82645 LOR- SR 0057 19.42 Federal Type: INTERCHANGE Letting Date: 4/17/2014 Completion Date: 7/15/2016
More informationCOST ESTIMATES: Curb-Running
COST ESTIMATES: Curb-Running PROJECT FEASIBILITY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY Geary Bus Rapid Transit Study Alternative: Side Lane (Curb Running) Date: 4/12/07 Percent Cost Total Project Capital Outlay I- Roadway
More informationCATEGORY 500 PAVING SECTION 535 PAVEMENT SURFACE PROFILE
CATEGORY 500 PAVING 1 of 9 SECTION 535.01 DESCRIPTION. This work shall consist of measuring the roughness of the final surface of hot mix asphalt (HMA) or portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements. The
More informationCity of Pacific Grove
Regional Study Utilizing Caltrans Intersection Evaluation Section 7: City of Pacific Grove s: FIRST STREET AT CENTRAL AVENUE Transportation Agency for Monterey County Prepared by Transportation Agency
More informationSpeed measurements were taken at the following three locations on October 13 and 14, 2016 (See Location Map in Exhibit 1):
2709 McGraw Drive Bloomington, Illinois 61704 p 309.663.8435 f 309.663.1571 www.f-w.com www.greennavigation.com November 4, 2016 Mr. Kevin Kothe, PE City Engineer City of Bloomington Public Works Department
More informationSECTIO N 610 PAVEMENT SMO O THNESS
SECTIO N 610 PAVEMENT SMO O THNESS 610.1 Description. This work shall consist of measuring the smoothness of the final pavement surface. Smoothness shall be measured using the International Roughness Index
More informationRoad User Cost Analysis
Road User Cost Analysis I-45 Gulf Freeway at Beltway 8 Interchange CSJ #500-03-382 1994 Texas Transportation Institute ROAD USER COST ANALYSIS CSJ #500-03-382 The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
More informationAppendix E3. Open Pit Pioneering and Pre-production
Appendix E3 Open Pit Pioneering and Pre-production File Note From: George Dermer To: File Date: January 11, 2012 Re: KSM Mitchell Pit Mine Pre-Production and Start-up plan Summary: Pre-Production mining
More informationOhio Department of Transportation Official Bid Tabulation Jerry Wray, Director
Ohio Department of Transportation Official Bid Tabulation Jerry Wray, Director Project No. 180573 PID 93496 FRA-IR 71-01.53 Federal Type: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (2 BRIDGES) Letting Date: 12/20/2018 Completion
More informationSECTION 9 STORM SEWER INLETS
SECTION 9 STORM SEWER INLETS CITY OF WESTMINSTER STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA SECTION 9 STORM SEWER INLETS 9.1 INTRODUCTION There are three types of inlets: curb opening, grated, and combination
More informationREMOTE SENSING DEVICE HIGH EMITTER IDENTIFICATION WITH CONFIRMATORY ROADSIDE INSPECTION
Final Report 2001-06 August 30, 2001 REMOTE SENSING DEVICE HIGH EMITTER IDENTIFICATION WITH CONFIRMATORY ROADSIDE INSPECTION Bureau of Automotive Repair Engineering and Research Branch INTRODUCTION Several
More informationSection 6H.01 Typical Applications
December 27, 2010 Draft Page 6H-1 Section 6H.01 Typical Applications Support: 01 Whenever the acronym TTC is used in this Chapter, it refers to temporary traffic control. 02 The needs and control of all
More informationDRAFT REPORT TXDOT SH 183 MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF ELM FORK OF TRINITY RIVER CROSSING AT SH 183 WITHIN THE ELM FORK WATERSHED
DRAFT REPORT TXDOT SH 183 MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF ELM FORK OF TRINITY RIVER CROSSING AT SH 183 WITHIN THE ELM FORK WATERSHED FOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DALLAS DISTRICT CONTRACT
More informationResidential Lighting: Shedding Light on the Remaining Savings Potential in California
Residential Lighting: Shedding Light on the Remaining Savings Potential in California Kathleen Gaffney, KEMA Inc., Oakland, CA Tyler Mahone, KEMA, Inc., Oakland, CA Alissa Johnson, KEMA, Inc., Oakland,
More informationDRIVEWAY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
DRIVEWAY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES These guidelines are provided to assist you in the construction of your driveway to help you determine: The best location on your property. What you need to
More informationCraig Scheffler, P.E., PTOE HNTB North Carolina, P.C. HNTB Project File: Subject
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To Kumar Neppalli Traffic Engineering Manager Town of Chapel Hill From Craig Scheffler, P.E., PTOE HNTB North Carolina, P.C. Cc HNTB Project File: 38435 Subject Obey Creek TIS 2022
More informationEffective [one year after date of adoption] the provisions of this rule shall apply to:
VENTURA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT RULE 55.1 PAVED ROADS AND PUBLIC UNPAVED ROADS (Adopted / / ) A. Applicability Effective [one year after date of adoption] the provisions of this rule shall
More information(2111) Digital Test Rolling REVISED 07/22/14 DO NOT REMOVE THIS. IT NEEDS TO STAY IN FOR THE CONTRACTORS. SP
S-xx (2111) Digital Test Rolling REVISED 07/22/14 DO NOT REMOVE THIS. IT NEEDS TO STAY IN FOR THE CONTRACTORS. SP2014-54.2 The Veda Software and Digital Test Rolling forms are available on the MnDOT Advanced
More informationMILLERSVILLE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND
MILLERSVILLE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND Prepared for: Department of Public Works Anne Arundel County Prepared by: URS Corporation 4 North Park Drive, Suite 3 Hunt Valley,
More informationThe major roadways in the study area are State Route 166 and State Route 33, which are shown on Figure 1-1 and described below:
3.5 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 3.5.1 Existing Conditions 3.5.1.1 Street Network DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The major roadways in the study area are State Route 166 and State Route 33, which are shown
More information1. INTRODUCTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION CUBES SELF-STORAGE MILL CREEK TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
CUBES SELF-STORAGE MILL CREEK TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON 1. INTRODUCTION This report summarizes traffic impacts of the proposed CUBES Self-Storage Mill Creek project in comparison to the traffic currently
More informationSchedule 18 (Technical Requirements) DBFO Agreement EXECUTION VERSION APPENDIX B - SELECT DEPARTMENT STANDARD DRAWINGS AND REFERENCE TABLES
Schedule (Technical Requirements) DBFO Agreement EXECUTION VERSION APPENDIX B - SELECT DEPARTMENT STANDARD DRAWINGS AND REFERENCE TABLES Schedule (Technical Requirements) DBFO Agreement EXECUTION VERSION
More informationInterstate Operations Study: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area Simulation Output
NDSU Dept #2880 PO Box 6050 Fargo, ND 58108-6050 Tel 701-231-8058 Fax 701-231-6265 www.ugpti.org www.atacenter.org Interstate Operations Study: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Area 2015 Simulation Output Technical
More informationDISTRIBUTION: Electronic Recipients List TRANSMITTAL LETTER NO. (15-01) MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. MANUAL: Road Design English Manual
DISTRIBUTION: Electronic Recipients List MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPED BY: Design Standards Unit ISSUED BY: Office of Project Management and Technical Support TRANSMITTAL LETTER NO.
More informationPembina Emerson Border Crossing Interim Measures Microsimulation
Pembina Emerson Border Crossing Interim Measures Microsimulation Final Report December 2013 Prepared for: North Dakota Department of Transportation Prepared by: Advanced Traffic Analysis Center Upper Great
More informationA Cost Benefit Analysis of Faster Transmission System Protection Schemes and Ground Grid Design
A Cost Benefit Analysis of Faster Transmission System Protection Schemes and Ground Grid Design Presented at the 2018 Transmission and Substation Design and Operation Symposium Revision presented at the
More informationOhio Department of Transportation Official Bid Tabulation James G. Beasley, P.E., P.S., Director
Ohio Department of Transportation Official Bid Tabulation James G. Beasley, P.E., P.S., Director Project No. 080598 PID 21272 CUY-SR-237-4.93 - PART I (FRONT STREET); CUY-237-4.55 - P Federal Type: RAILROAD
More informationCHAPTER 9: VEHICULAR ACCESS CONTROL Introduction and Goals Administration Standards
9.00 Introduction and Goals 9.01 Administration 9.02 Standards 9.1 9.00 INTRODUCTION AND GOALS City streets serve two purposes that are often in conflict moving traffic and accessing property. The higher
More informationDate: February 7, 2017 John Doyle, Z-Best Products Robert Del Rio. T.E. Z-Best Traffic Operations and Site Access Analysis
Memorandum Date: February 7, 07 To: From: Subject: John Doyle, Z-Best Products Robert Del Rio. T.E. Z-Best Traffic Operations and Site Access Analysis Introduction Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
More informationFigure 1 Map of intersection of SR 44 (Ravenna Rd) and Butternut Rd
Abbreviated Study District: 12 County: Geauga Route: SR 44 Section: 1.58 GEA 44 1.58 213 HSP # 47 (Rural Intersection) Prepared April 23, 215 By Bryan Emery Existing Conditions This study contains the
More informationCost Benefit Analysis of Faster Transmission System Protection Systems
Cost Benefit Analysis of Faster Transmission System Protection Systems Presented at the 71st Annual Conference for Protective Engineers Brian Ehsani, Black & Veatch Jason Hulme, Black & Veatch Abstract
More informationPERMIT FOR INSTALLATION ON COUNTY RIGHTS-OF-WAY: ACCESS DRIVEWAYS RESIDENTIAL
PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION ON COUNTY RIGHTS-OF-WAY: ACCESS DRIVEWAYS RESIDENTIAL Submit To Martin County Judge s Office P.O. Box 1330 Stanton Texas 79782-1330 mhernandez@co.martin.tx.us APPLICATION: Permittee
More informationAASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Plan Standing Committee on Highways September 24, 2015
AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, 2015 AASHTO/FHWA Joint Implementation Plan Standing Committee on Highways September 24, 2015 Full Scale MASH Crash Tests (NCHRP 22-14(02)) Conducted several
More informationMetropolitan Freeway System 2007 Congestion Report
Metropolitan Freeway System 2007 Congestion Report Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Traffic, Safety and Operations Freeway Operations Section Regional Transportation Management Center March
More information.MAINTENANCE. Strategic Initiative Four:
The accompanying fact sheets explain specific components of the department s effort to prioritize maintenance activities. This information provides the basis of ODOT s 2001 Strategic Initiative Four: Re-Defining
More informationRoundabout Feasibility Study SR 44 at Grand Avenue TABLE OF CONTENTS
Roundabout Feasibility Study SR 44 at Grand Avenue TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Executive Summary... 1 Existing Conditions... 3 Intersection Volume Conditions... 5 Intersection Operations... 9 Safety
More information3. Application Fees, Certificate Of Insurance & Performance Bond
SUBSECTION 13.10 CONSTRUCTION OF DRIVEWAYS 13.10A PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 1. General A driveway or access road serving private property and intersecting with a town road shall be constructed in such a manner
More informationDELINEATOR REFERENCE POINT 200' TYPICAL SPACING (YELLOW DELINEATORS) END OF MERGE LANE TAPER DELINEATOR REFERENCE POINT
200' TYP. 0' < EACH SIDE BOTH ROADWAYS END OF MERGE LANE TAPER TYPICAL FOR ALL 2-LANE MERGES EXCEPT WHERE THERE IS A MERGE FROM THE RIGHT AND NO OFFSET IN THE THROUGH LANES END OF MERGE LANE TAPER 200'
More informationCHAPTER 140 DRIVEWAYS
CHAPTER 140 DRIVEWAYS 140.01 Purpose 140.10 Driveway Location 140.02 Definitions 140.11 Driveway Maintenance 140.03 Driveway Construction 140.12 Failure To Maintain 140.04 Driveway Surfaces 140.13 Permit
More informationMetropolitan Freeway System 2013 Congestion Report
Metropolitan Freeway System 2013 Congestion Report Metro District Office of Operations and Maintenance Regional Transportation Management Center May 2014 Table of Contents PURPOSE AND NEED... 1 INTRODUCTION...
More informationTown of Londonderry, New Hampshire NH Route 28 Western Segment Traffic Impact Fee Methodology
Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire NH Route 28 Western Segment Traffic Impact Fee Methodology Prepared by the Londonderry Community Development Department Planning & Economic Development Division Based
More informationOhio Department of Transportation Official Bid Tabulation Jerry Wray, Director
Ohio Department of Transportation Official Bid Tabulation Jerry Wray, Director Project No. 170607 PID 85146 CUY-SR 21-10.04L Federal Type: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT (1 BRIDGE) Letting Date: 12/14/2017 Completion
More informationEXCEPTION TO STANDARDS REPORT
EXCEPTION TO STANDARDS REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND NEED The project is located in Section 6, Township 23 North, Range 9 East and Section 31 Township 24 North, Range 9 East, in the Town of Stockton,
More informationTransit City Etobicoke - Finch West LRT
Delcan Corporation Transit City Etobicoke - Finch West LRT APPENDIX D Microsimulation Traffic Modeling Report March 2010 March 2010 Appendix D CONTENTS 1.0 STUDY CONTEXT... 2 Figure 1 Study Limits... 2
More informationClean Harbors Canada, Inc.
Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Proposed Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference Transportation Assessment St. Clair Township, Ontario September 2009 itrans Consulting Inc. 260
More informationBARRHAVEN FELLOWSHIP CRC 3058 JOCKVALE ROAD OTTAWA, ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION BRIEF. Prepared for:
BARRHAVEN FELLOWSHIP CRC 3058 JOCKVALE ROAD OTTAWA, ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION BRIEF Prepared for: Barrhaven Fellowship CRC 3058 Jockvale Road Ottawa, ON K2J 2W7 December 7, 2016 116-649 Report_1.doc D. J.
More informationCity of Marina. Regional Roundabout Study Utilizing Caltrans Intersection Control Evaluation Section 4: Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Regional Roundabout Study Utilizing Caltrans Intersection Control Evaluation Section 4: City of Marina Study Intersections: RESERVATION ROAD AT BEACH ROAD RESERVATION ROAD AT DEFOREST ROAD CARDOZA AVENUE
More informationOhio Department of Transportation Official Bid Tabulation Jerry Wray, Director
Ohio Department of Transportation Official Bid Tabulation Jerry Wray, Director Project No. 110146 PID 82278 HAM-IR-75-5.58 Federal Type: INTERCHANGE Letting Date: 5/5/2011 Completion Date: 7/31/2014 Contract
More informationDESCRIPTION This work consists of measuring the smoothness of the final concrete or bituminous surface.
2399 PAVEMENT SURFACE SMOOTHNESS 2399.1 DESCRIPTION This work consists of measuring the smoothness of the final concrete or bituminous surface. A Definitions The Department defines Smoothness as the Mean
More informationLesson 1: Introduction to PowerCivil
1 Lesson 1: Introduction to PowerCivil WELCOME! This document has been prepared to assist you in the exploration of and assimilation to the powerful civil design capabilities of Bentley PowerCivil. Each
More informationI-290 Phase I Study Summary of NFPA-130 Analysis of Proposed CTA Station Platform Widths May 2016
I-290 Phase I Study Summary of NFPA-130 Analysis of Proposed CTA Station Platform Widths May 2016 INTRODUCTION As part of the I-290 reconstruction phase I study, IDOT has coordinated with the CTA regarding
More information2016 Congestion Report
2016 Congestion Report Metropolitan Freeway System May 2017 2016 Congestion Report 1 Table of Contents Purpose and Need...3 Introduction...3 Methodology...4 2016 Results...5 Explanation of Percentage Miles
More information1400 MISCELLANEOUS Traffic Engineering Manual
TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 14 - MISCELLANEOUS 1400 GENERAL... 14-3 1415 RUMBLE STRIPS (INCLUDING STRIPES) IN THE ROADWAY... 14-4 1415-1 General... 14-4 1415-2 Transverse Rumble Strips... 14-4 1415-2.1 General...
More informationRTID Travel Demand Modeling: Assumptions and Method of Analysis
RTID Travel Demand Modeling: Assumptions and Method of Analysis Overall Model and Scenario Assumptions The Puget Sound Regional Council s (PSRC) regional travel demand model was used to forecast travel
More informationNorth Whitfield County Roadway Corridor Study
North Whitfield County Roadway Corridor Study Report #3: Summary and Implementation Plan MA Project 11501 September 22, 2011 Prepared For: Greater Dalton Metropolitan Planning Organization Prepared By:
More informationELMORE COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
Adopted 11/27/06 Effective 2/1/07 Amended 4/10/08 ELMORE COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 155 County Shop Road Wetumpka, Alabama 36092 Phone (334) 567-1162 Fax (334) 567-1100 Access Management Policy The Elmore
More informationSight Distance. A fundamental principle of good design is that
Session 9 Jack Broz, PE, HR Green May 5-7, 2010 Sight Distance A fundamental principle of good design is that the alignment and cross section should provide adequate sight lines for drivers operating their
More informationAct 229 Evaluation Report
R22-1 W21-19 W21-20 Act 229 Evaluation Report Prepared for Prepared by Table of Contents 1. Documentation Page 3 2. Executive Summary 4 2.1. Purpose 4 2.2. Evaluation Results 4 3. Background 4 4. Approach
More informationChapter 8.0 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Chapter 8.0 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM This chapter presents the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the District based on the findings of this Master Plan. The Master Plan primarily
More informationAppendix H TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Appendix H TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Teichert Boca Quarry Expansion Traffic Impact Analysis Prepared for Teichert Aggregates Prepared by TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
More informationTraffic and Toll Revenue Estimates
The results of WSA s assessment of traffic and toll revenue characteristics of the proposed LBJ (MLs) are presented in this chapter. As discussed in Chapter 1, Alternatives 2 and 6 were selected as the
More informationTo: File From: Adrian Soo, P. Eng. Markham, ON File: Date: August 18, 2015
Memo To: From: Adrian Soo, P. Eng. Markham, ON : 165620021 Date: Reference: E.C. Row Expressway, Dominion Boulevard Interchange, Dougall Avenue Interchange, and Howard 1. Review of Interchange Geometry
More informationAlpine Highway to North County Boulevard Connector Study
Alpine Highway to North County Boulevard Connector Study prepared by Avenue Consultants March 16, 2017 North County Boulevard Connector Study March 16, 2017 Table of Contents 1 Summary of Findings... 1
More informationEnergy Technical Memorandum
Southeast Extension Project Lincoln Station to RidgeGate Parkway Prepared for: Federal Transit Administration Prepared by: Denver Regional Transportation District May 2014 Table of Contents Page No. Chapter
More informationTown of Goshen Driveway Regulations
Driveway Regulations 1. Authority These regulations are adopted by the Goshen Planning Board under the authority of New Hampshire RSA 236:13 236:14. They govern the construction and alteration of driveways,
More information